Peter Atkins of Naturapet didn't ask the right questions

This post will be pretty "inside baseball" for many people but it was written to reach a few very select audiences. When I read about people in corporations who want to know how to "interact with the bloggers" (which either means "how do we shut them up?" or "how do we sell them stuff") I go a little crazy.

Good communications is good communication. Your actions are your actions. People can tell the difference between authentic communications and corp speak or spin. I'd be happy to come to your office and explain it all to you (and your CEO).

When an executive takes an action that is different from what he says, people notice. Contrary to some people's beliefs, although customers might not have the same high IQ (or fat paycheck) as a CEO, they are geniuses when it comes to sniffing out when people are holding back information or when they are being spun.*

Some companies say stuff like "we listen to our customers" because they think it makes the people feel valuable, but often their actions show them actively IGNORING their customers. Why? Because customers can be a pain in the ass. Especially if they ask questions that companies don't want to answer. So what do the companies do? They answer the questions that they want to answer and think that the customers will think that it is good enough, and some some it is.*

I called this dodge the Rumsfeld Technique (And yes I coined that term -spocko). Rummy "Took control" of an interview by asking and answered the questions himself! Brilliant! Lots of the press fell for it. CEOs admired his "managing" the press. And it worked, because he was good at it, but eventually it got harder and harder to hide from reality.

Below is a long post is from a forum at Itchmo.
[UPDATE 7/25/2007 The Brilliant Offy has provided a recap and summary of this story having to do with ExperTox findings of acetaminophen and cyanuric acid in Innova dry dog food made by Naturapet. (Offy really is super smart, I've talked to her and from one brain to another, I'm impressed.)


If you want to read the background and the whole thread go here
It has to do with my friend Donna and the results she got when she tested her Innova dry dog food.

Peter Atkins posted his results of some testing Naturapet did and Donna replied and point out the holes in his test and story here.

I'm sorry if for some people this isn't clear or they think it is too long, but if you aren't interested you don't have to read this.

-Spocko

*With the exception of about 25 percent of the people who DO believe spin, see current Bush polls.

MY Post in the Itchmo Forum.
I know that the people at Naturapet and their competitors/colleagues are reading this so I want to be clear, I'm going to talk to you all like intelligent adults since I understand the stakes.

You are of course very aware of HOW you went about doing this testing. It was not an accident who you choose and what specifically you asked them to look for. That is to be expected. Your goal would be to disprove ExperTox's results. That is your short term communications goal. But I think we all know that you did NOT address the real question which was, "Something made our customer's pets sick, what was it and why did it happen?"

Your food, given to Donna's pets made them sick. What they ate is the variable here. I think we can agree on that (unless you want to go the accusation route which I sincerely hope you do not given all the incredible lengths that Donna went through to deal with you in good faith)

How you responded to Donna and your specific follow up shows clearly the focus was to shut down the criticism rather than address the real question.

I understand that posture. It is what your stockholders would expect you to do. Of course if you want to keep your customers happy you would probably want to find out the answer to that question. Why? So it doesn't happen again. Because making pets sick is not good for business. Maybe you have looked back up the supply chain and found the Chinese vitamin manufacturer that made the mistake. Maybe you found another chemical that you don't want to talk about but you quietly changed suppliers. Your lawyers would probably advise you to keep that quiet because that's what lawyers do. "Don't make any extra information available unless they ask, preferably under a subpoena!"

And that is shown specifically when you look at what the UC Davis lab was ONLY requested to look for, Acetaminophen. Note: No request to look for cyanuric acid. Which was ALSO found in Donna's food sample.
Other tests might have come back, but you did not post the results. If not, why not? And of course the MidWest test (who I believe is your regular lab) wasn't even looking for acetaminophen.

Now I note that ExperTox also tested a sample, clever move on your part.
So what does that mean, was ExperTox wrong on Donna's sample or were they wrong on your sample? I'll expect you to throw out the "opened bag" gambit, where you make a subtle accusation at the honesty of the person who has shown time and time again that they are not trying to shake you down, yet simply wants the truth. This same gambit was used by P&G and Iams on Ben here at Itchmo. You throw the burden back on the consumer and work to discredit the lab. In my conversations with people in the industry this is considered SOP when dealing with these issues.

I want you all to know something.

NB: Latin for Note Well.

This is not about someone who is putting a finger in her chili to get money out of Wendy's. These are not people who are bringing cockroaches from home to put in the food at the restaurant to get a free meal. These are not hysterical pet owners who are freaking out when Rover gets a tummy ache.

You would know if the people who reported problems here on this forum were looking to shake you down if they acted like those people. They. Did. Not.

Yet you have chosen to treat them like false accusers rather than people who simple want to know, "What is it in your food that made my pet sick? Why did this batch make my pets sick when it never made them sick before?" They expected YOU to look out for their pets first because they thought that it would ALSO be good for your business.

So instead of working so hard to only DISPROVE results, you might have worked hard to answer the question, what WAS it that made the pets sick? Isn't THAT something that all the employees at Naturapet would like to know? Maybe it isn't something that has revealed itself yet, remember it took a while to find the cause of the Menu Foods recall one lab's results weren't replicated, yet the bottom line was SOMETHING was making the pets sick and killing them. That should be you goal.

This is an important distinction and one that must be made. In a world with a working government that is designed to protect the food supply the FDA or USDA should be answering the question as an outside group, but sadly they have proved that only a major disaster gets them to act and then slowly and with the concerns of the business first and customers later.

At some time I'd like get into a discussion about testing methods done by all these labs the LACK of apples to apples sample comparisons and the issue of LG-MS vs GC-MS and methodology. I've had discussions with people in the scientific community about all of these, but first:

The issue of the "retain sample is a composite of the entire production run".

To be clear I'll call this the poison potato vs. the poison soup analogy.

Let's say you have a stew and you have some poison potatoes in it and the person testing the stew only takes a scoop of the stew without potatoes. Tested for poison it will reveal nothing. The potatoes are in discrete lumps and can be missed.

Now if you have a smooth bowl of tomato soup and the person testing the soup takes a scoop out of the soup and tests it for poison it will reveal the poison because the poison is probably evenly mixed throughout the soup.

So is the food more like stew or like soup? Did your test get the "poison potatoes" in the stew? ExperTox says they stand by Donna's results. Why the problem with YOUR sample? Why not do the same test with her samples?

The sample of the product in question (and I've seen the photos) was more like stew, I've seen the lumps. So unless the "composite of the entire production run" shows the same lumps then you were testing the scoop without the "poison potato".

Everyone here understands the high stakes. We also understand the methods that companies will use to avoid dealing with the real problem. Many of us live in the real world and can see through techniques designed to calm the consumers and not address the underlying issue.

The industry holds up the Johnson and Johnson company as the gold standard for how to deal with a crisis with food and drugs. Ironically it was their branded acetaminophen that had to be recalled. What few people remember is that at the time their actions were considered "over reactions" in the industry and I believe that they were first punished by Wall Street for doing a global recall. Many thought that they would never recover, but people KNEW by their actions that the people doing the recall thought first of the customer and then later about what the Lawyers would say and how the market would react.

I compare that response to how the pet food companies responded. Who does the pet food industry hires to defend them? How do they deal with customers?

I have confidence in Donna's word. I will stand by her and support her goal of protecting the health of her pets.

Can the FDA Assure Safety and Security of the Food Supply? Part 2 hearing

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007

Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply? – Part 2
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
9:30 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building
Witness List
Connect to the Video Webcast (100 kbps)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml

Witness list:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-oi-hrg.071707.Witness%20List.pdf

Thanks to reader Mike for staying on top of this.
I'm of course hoping that someone will ask them timeline questions.

Also I'm hoping for some
"What did you know and when did you know it?" questions (It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it...)

As I've reminded people, the FDA has no recall power, except for baby formula.
So faced with a new problem (chickens and hogs that ate melamine and c-acid laden pet food) the FDA decided that instead of telling Big Chicken and Big Pig to recall the chickens and pigs, they "worked closely with industry" and created a risk assessment report based on, how shall I say this politely, weak science.

And guess what, the risk assessment said, "Sure send it out to the humans, based on old data from other species and not on any actual current feeding tests, the probability is low that it won't be a problem." Hey America, how does it feel to be Big Chicken's guinea pig? Would have been nice if we could have known when we were being used as a guinea pig right? So we could say, "I don't trust your "risk assessment" please tell me which chickens were the ones I ate.

But I always wondered, if it wasn't a problem then why didn't they tell us the NAMES of the big chicken farm that sold the chickens? Why didn't they say, "The chicken is as safe as houses based on our "risk assessment" so the company that is selling it to you is ____________."?

BTW, I'm pretty sure I know which one of the Big Chicken players it is, but of course after I alerted the advertisers to the violent rhetoric of the talk radio people and they shut down my blog and threatened me I have no desire to expose myself to the censorship games of yet another multi-billion dollar industry. (Hey, maybe I should tell people if they send me a self addressed stamped envelop along with $100 bucks then I can say, "You didn't hear it from me." )

Here's my questions that they won't get to because I don't have any real power (aka lobbyists whispering into my ear).

Did Big Chicken put the pressure on the FDA to create this "risk assessment" so that they could get the USDA stamp so they could sell to humans? What role did Big Chicken and Big Pig have in this process of determining the safety of the food that they probably didn't want to cull? Was that contact appropriate?

I wonder how they will respond. I mean it's not like they need to lie if you asked them. I'm sure they would just say that they were "working closely with industry". Say for example Big Chicken called the FDA and said, "Create a test so I don't have to kill 20 million chickens and 56,000 hogs." Would it be WRONG of them to suggest that? I'm sure that it would be seen as just a suggestion and it's not like they are trying to intimidate the FDA. I do wonder if there are some rules and guidelines that they are breaking-- maybe Lisa Shames and the wonderful folks at the GAO could tell us.

NOTE: We don't use the precautionary principle here. Therefore looks like we are going the China route. So I guess the rule is "If it's not EXPLICITLY going to kill you, go ahead and put it in. And then, if later, we find out that it DOES kill people, well then we'll stop."

I do hope one of the fine reps asks about the process of creating the risk assessment, and then asks, "Who's chickens were they and then where did those chickens and pigs get sent to?"

I'm sure they have a good answers, the best money can buy.

Updated and edited, draft was posted first. I blame Haloscan.

Calling Scientists and Mathamticians! Use your Skills! Help Save Lives!

Gina at Pet Connection did a great translation and analysis of the peer review results of the risk assessment document created by the FDA so that the USDA could give approval to Big Chicken and Big Pig to release the chickens and pigs into the human food supply.

DMS in comments makes the stunningly clear comment that I was going to make:

I think we need to keep in mind that the FDA/USDA released all of the chickens, eggs and Pigs for processing and sale before they even had their assessment peer-reviewed. Where else, but in the American government, would that happen?

Comment by DMS — June 13, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

This is at the heart of the issue. Big Chicken and Big Pig wanted a reason they could use to get the USDA to release their chicken and hogs into the human food supply. They got it. And it's not even really a test. It's a RISK ASSESSMENT. They are creating probabilities based on assumptions in lieu of hard data. And guess what? There were no mathematicians on the peer review list. Surprised? I'm not.

Calling Superstar Mathamtician, John Allen Paulos. Also known as:"Mathamtician to the Media" For my money, Paulos is the best explainer of math and stats in the business.

John Allen Paulos to the Blue Spocko Courtesy phone. John Allen Paulos to the Blue Spocko Courtesy phone.

3.5 million chickens went out because someone took recalled pet food known to kill animals and fed it to chickens. Maybe that food could be excused, it was the first batch that went to humans.

(BTW, somewhere out there a odd lots person(s) who said, "Hey, I can pick up this food for pennies and sell it for dimes. Why is it so cheap? Who cares!" Hey buddy that "food" killed thousands of pets and tens of thousands more, and now you are going to feed it to the animals I eat? Thanks a lot, jerk.)

I want some OTHER scientists to look at this and speak plainly about this (and about your peer's peer review if you don't mind.) I know that some of you have less at stake than getting the call from the FDA to do more paid (?) peer reviews, so maybe you can be a bit more... blunt. After all, it's your life this time, not just some pets.

And speaking of mathematicians like John Allen Paulos, (who is one of my favorite writers on math, the media and humor) Listen to explodinghed, another commenter at Pet Connection.

risk assessment is simply a way of appearing to make responsible decisions without actually doing that. it’s been going on in business for a very long time. this peer review was less of a whitewash than i expected it to be, but i’m not surprised that they reached the conclusion that fda’s actions were “reasonable”. i’m sure that everyone involved knew what their assignment was.

note that there are no PhD level mathematicians on this panel. not for nothing, but in more than a decade of working on biological research projects and water analysis projects, i was rather shocked to realize that in general, the scientists with whom i worked were almost uniformly terrible mathemeticians, and in many cases not even good scientists.
[snip]
Comment by explodinghed — June 14, 2007 @ 5:13 am

(btw, I'm not going to fault him or her for their spelling and capitalization, this is not a peer reviewed blog...)

So if you want to check out the risk assessment on the contaminants that that went into 23.5 million chickens and 56,000 hogs read it here. (Link)

If you then want to comment go here:
Docket: 2007N-0208 - Draft Melamine and Analogues Safety/Risk Assessment; Availabiity [sic] (link to comment form)

Finally, here is the big thing to remember. If this food is NOT safe to eat, you Can NOT avoid it even if you want to. Why? Because the FDA/USDA will NOT tell you who put these 23.5 million chickens into your food supply.

What would have happened if the peer review panel said: "This is a TERRIBLE risk assessment. This should NOT be used to justify sending 20 million chickens and 56,000 hogs into our food supply."?

Nothing. Why? Because the chicken has flown the coup. The hogs are now your bacon.

So now that the risk assessment peer review has declared it "reasonable" (by some hand picked scientists ) can they tell us the names of the chicken farms that sold the chicken to us? Why not?
What is their fear? Don't they trust their scientists? Don't they think that they are reasonable?

If they don't tell us the names of the farms and tell us WHERE the food went then we know that they don't believe their own data. But they are willing to make us the guinea pigs because their first and foremost purpose is not as stated:

FDA's Former Mission Statement

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

The New FDA Mission Statement?

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health profits of corporations by assuring the safety of their food. The FDA provides the public information that the corporations deem useful for consumers to consume the foods that are being sold to them.

Lee Rodgers Likes that the Chinese Poisoned Your Cat or Dog

This is an actual quote. Listen: audio link

Are some people so black hearted and cruel that they come out in favor of the poisoning of your pets? Yes. Are these people paid by the pet food industry to promote their products? Yes.
Who are these people? One is Lee Rodgers at KSFO, and today, June 12, his new boss, Citadel Broadcasting closes the 2.7 billion dollar deal with Disney.

When confronted what do people like Rodgers say? That they were joking? I've heard sick jokes and I recognize the cadence. Doesn't sound like it to me. But if it is, is calling it a joke really enough cover for this sickness? And is the excuse, "Well I have a pet myself! So clearly I didn't mean it!" Going to fly? So I guess he really doesn't want all cats and dogs dead, just yours and not his.

Purina is a major sponsor of KSFO's Morning program. And if you think that Rodgers will apologize think again. He does NOT apologize for talking about blowing the brains out of humans. (link) audio of Rodgers not apologizing for suggesting the torture and execution of a Lincoln Nebraska man. Link

He never bothered to apologize for saying someone suspected of a crime be burned alive (Melanie Morgan added the hogtied to the burned alive bit). So this isn't just a one time deal.
I'm sure the excuse that the humans did bad things works for some people, but what did a bunch of innocent pets ever do to him?

I do hope that Karen Crawford, the Director-advertising and relationship marketing at Nestle USA or Kathie Day, the Director, Marketing, Purina One, Nestle Purina Petcare understand that associating with these kind of people isn't' really good for their brand.
People with dead pets don't need to buy Purina.

A friend put the email contacts in encrypted form to make it harder for screen scrappers to get the email. You must have javascript enabled to get the info.

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Keith Schopp	Public Relations	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Jim Radt	Marketing Director	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Karen Crawford	Director-advertising and relationship marketing, Nestle USA	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Kathie Day	Director, Marketing, Purina One Nestle Purina Petcare	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact

Thanks to Special Place in Hell for the javascript encryption!
update 6-12-07: correctly pointed out the NON-apologies and added audio clip

Paying Attention to New Orleans Pumps. Corp mistakes that Might cost Lives

Scout at First Draft has a great post up titled, Army Corps of Engineers Report: New Orleans Pumps still have mechanical flaws; also found contract improprieties check it out and also check out Matt McBride's, excellent blog "Fix the Pumps" for his engineering rigor (or any of my buddies in the New Orleans blogger community in my blog roll at the right. I dig them all, with special props to Gentilly Girl, Dangerblond and Humid City v. 2.3.


There is a view formulated by right-wing think tanks that if only government would get off their damn backs with demands for safety that everything would be better. That the "free market" will fix it all. That there are too many damn rules that are just a burden already.

But here's the thing. Rules and regulation are GREAT for businesses. Businesses NEED a working government. They NEED a working legal system. Competent government oversight is GOOD for the health of business. Just like a working media are good for government and business. The corporations will never admit this because, well then they would have to acknowledge all the good things they get out of rules, regulations, laws and a working government infrastructure.

I've heard some corporate executives say, "All I need is an unfair advantage."

Of COURSE they won't talk about the tremendous benefit they get from worker safety rules or government oversight, or contract regulations. Instead they find the excesses to make a point.

"Look how ridiculous this rule is! See how inefficient government is? What stupid requirements they demand!" Yes, there are ridiculous excesses, but there often is a reason for each and every one of the rules and regulations. Some company (or multiple companies) got busted badly and people got sick, died or will die because of a serious transgression. Or the corporation did life -changing economic harm to millions of people.

And the people cry out for justice.

"Where was the government at? How could the businesses get away with this? What kind of greedy monsters want to hide and cover-up information about poison in food?"

So then people become reluctant activists. I explain to them that they are working against a mind set and structure that has been developed and nurtured for decades. This mind set has been fabulously successful and its practitioners are highly-skilled and well paid.

These companies won't admit a failure even when their noses are rubbed in it, or if they do, it will have to be pro-forma admission of guilt which is Latin for "I don't really want to say this, but I will because I have to and secretly I'm glad I have to." (High school Latin scholars feel free to jump in here and comment.)


Corporations That act Like Children

People who study childhood development tell us that children need structure. Children have to learn what things will hurt them ("Hot! Don't touch! Don't play with matches! Careful! You'll poke your sister's eye out with that stick!")

Children will resist the warnings until they achieve awareness that the rules and warnings are for THEM and not some other children out there who are really bad. The rules they break are often designed to protect themselves and others. ("Don't eat that! It's poison! Don't feed that to your sister, it will kill her!")

I don't expect to hear children say (until years later) "Thank you Mother for not letting me eat that poison. Thank you Father for insisting I always wear protective goggles when woodworking." They don't have that kind of insight. But they should be grateful that someone insisted they do the right thing.

I clearly remember walking with a friend with toddlers in tow through the Air and Space museum in Washington D.C.. It was like the kids had no idea that gravity worked! They were ready to fling themselves off of high places or slip through gaps in the bars of railings overlooking the airplanes and space capsules. It was exhausting keeping an eye on them because they were constantly trying to evade our watchful eyes. Their quest to have fun looked to me like a constant attempt to kill themselves.

I mention all this because whenever there are calls for any regulation the cries of "Nanny state!" start. Any attempt at sensible guidelines or regulation are loudly shouted down under the guise of "there is too much regulation already!" They are then quietly shouted down with donations in the halls of congress. When we looked at something like the pet food industry we see that regulation to them doesn't have the same meaning as it does to us. But they know that throwing around the words "highly regulated" will stem the tide of criticism and bring out the defenders of all things "free" market and anti-oversight with real regulation.

Like a child they would never come forward and say, "PLEASE regulate me. I need the discipline!" Instead they will say, "I don't want any stupid rules. I'm going to pick up my toys and go to somewhere were their aren't rules." And because there are plenty of people and countries to choose from with cheap labor they will pick the ones that lets them follow the least amount of rules.

And then when some of them grow up (usually after something bad happens) they realize that those pesky rules were there for a purpose. They can see that a working infrastructure legal system, food safety, human safety or financial guidelines were actually good for them. But now they are addicted to the rhetoric, stuck in the groove of decades. Fighting the previous battle and imaginary excesses and some rare real exceptions.

I use the"business as child" metaphor because if I didn't, it would be too hard to contemplate.

Imagine people in business or supporting businesses who actively work to make it possible for MORE horrible acts to happen? I can't imagine people sit around and decide to cover up or support poison in food. People who, instead of addressing the problem, argue that the problem doesn't exist or question the credibility of the critic. What kind of people would do that?

Can you imagine someone calculating that X number of people or pets might die because of this, then asking "What do we had to do so that we can get away with it?" I just don't think that most humans would say, "Who do we have to hire to cover this it up, to make it go away and shut up the critics?" Normal people don't think that way.

If these people exist, surely they must not be lionized. Surely people whose job it is to draw focus from the problem, aren't aware of what they are really doing. I think that those people, if they are involved, will make weak arguments in a desperate hope that that they will be seen as a sham. I would think that these people would quietly do the right thing to maintain their personal moral high ground. But I do understand the power and pressure of the child and their self-centered world view. The Child will scream "I hate you!" to the parent who tells them, "No! You can't feed your sister that. It will make her sick!"

If there are people at the highest levels making this all possible, how would you react to them? Should they be praised? Excused? Rewarded? Vilified? How should they be treated by other humans? And what about the people who assist them knowingly? What role do that play? What culpability do people with full awareness have? People who know something is wrong and do it anyway? But I'm just a brain in a box. I live in the internet. I don't get out much, so I don't know the ways of the world.

When time in measured in nano-seconds, I wonder how much time should be given to people to act in a manner that is befitting of the label, human being?

Question for Dr. Kenneth Petersen. Whose Chickens are They?

A very simple question for:

Dr. Kenneth Petersen, assistant administrator for field operations with the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. OR

Terri Teuber, USDA spokeswoman or
Mike Johanns, Agriculture Secretary or
Julie Zawisza, assistant commissioner for public affairs or
Dr. David Acheson, the assistant commissioner for Food Protection, FDA.
This is regarding the millions of chickens that ate tainted feed. (story here)

Q. If the 20 million chickens are safe to eat, what are the names of the companies who are selling these chickens to the public?

• If you won't tell us, why not?
• If you don't tell us, does that mean they really aren't safe?
• What about the 3.5 million chickens that when out in February? Who sold those to people?
• What rules are you following regarding disclosure of this information?
• Did you cut a deal with the chicken processor(s) to not name the names?

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said this during comments to the Organic Trade Association.

"We literally found that the dilution is so minute, in fact in some cases you can't even test and find melamine any more in that product," (link)

Great Mike, sounds grand. Now who is selling this chicken? Where can I buy it? It sounds like the Safest. Chicken. Ever.

Since I'm not allowed to ask the question in your press conference, I'm hoping one or more of the team of journalists will use one of their precious questions to get this answer. And when the question is dodged, maybe another journalist will use their ONE precious question to ask it again. And again. Because really, if it's safe enough to eat, why wouldn't you tell us the names? Oh and don't forget which lots, which dates and shipped to which stores.

Maybe the public has a right to know where to buy the Safest. Chicken. Ever.

Below is a list of folks who are playing this game of chicken with the USDA and FDA. The USDA and FDA have held back information until they could put out the, "Melamine Chicken: It's safe as houses" press release. Next the FDA/USDA will dance around the question of whose chicken was processed and whom did they sell them too. I'm really curious to see which spin they will use. These are my guesses:

• We don't know
  
• It's proprietary information
• It's irrelevant since all chicken is safe. Trust us. Trust our assumptions.
  
• It's not really important
• There is no difference between this chicken and regular chicken, therefore it would be irresponsible of us to single out a single processor

My money is on the last one, it has the right mix of arrogance and deference to the honchos in the chicken biz.

Some of the press following this are very sharp (see list below). The USDA and FDA are treating the media (and the public they represent) like they are ignorant of science, politics and how the world works.
Frankly I have great confidence that a few of these folks WILL get to this question. And maybe they will get to some of these other questions in dark blue from my "Calling all science journalists" post.


Abigail Goldman with Los Angeles Times.
Deidre Henderson.Boston Globe.
Joe Johns with CNN
Randy Schmitt, Associated Press
David Curley, ABC News
*Julie Schmitt, USA Today.
*Elizabeth Weiss, USA Today
Nancy Cortis, CBS News or
*Dr. Debbye Turner, CBS Early Show
Brooke Turnbulle, or Dan Grutnech from CNN
Loren Edder, Wall Street Journal
*Steve Hedges, Chicago Tribune
Susan Heedy, Reuters.
Bill Tomson with Dow Jones
Andrew Martin, New York Times
John Rockoff, Baltimore Sun
Heather Harland, NHK Japan
*Karen Roebuck, Pittsburgh Tribune Review
David Brown, Washington Post
Steve Osbey, The Greenville News
Alan Bjerga, Bloomberg News

J.M. Hirsch, Associated Press

(list and spelling from the May 3 2007 transcript of the conference call)
* These are the folks that I have the most confidence in asking sharp questions to get to the truth. If only Christie Keith, from PetConnection were allowed to ask questions. Sigh.

Calling all Science Journalists.Notes for the FDA 5/8 press conference

At the Vulcan Science Academy they don't teach human spin.

I know that there are some good journalists out there that know both science and human spin who can understand what is going on in this press release below. Based on my years of observing humans I'll take a crack at it. Anyone want to jump in, go ahead. Or better yet, ask the FDA one of these questions. But be smart about it because the FDA and the USDA are better at dancing than Gene Kelly in Singing in the Rain.

The FDA knows how to control the press in their press conference. How?

1) Press conferences are short, only one question is allowed, there are no follow ups allowed. They control the phone lines so you CAN'T ask more than one question. Why? Because a focused group of people would bust them for their vague answers to questions.

2) Only "credentialed press" even get to ask questions. This doesn't include the bloggers who have been following this crisis for weeks. And even the credentialed press get blocked if they aren't high status enough. For example, Christie Keith of PetConnection is blocked from having her questions asked because the high status press had to have their questions asked first.

Christie has better questions and has been tracking this story from day one. She was graced with access but didn't get to ask her great questions because she has busted the FDA twice for not having the right info. She is being treated like Helen Thomas and relegated to the back row because she asks the tough questions. Frankly this is bullsh*t. The FDA/USDA should keep the press conference going until all the questions are asked and everyone is satisfied with the answers.

This whole process is backwards. Instead of simply saying, "We are asking for a voluntary recall the pigs and chicken." they are saying:
"We are going to try and convince people that the chicken and pigs are safe to eat."

Why are they going this route? Because the 3.5 million chickens are already in your belly folks. But they won't tell you who ate those 3.5 million chickens. So they are working very hard to try to prove what you ate was safe. This also has the added benefit of pleasing the swine and poultry industry. They don't want to lose the money from the 20 million chickens.

They are rolling the dice with your health. Thanks FDA and USDA for looking out for our health first (sarcasm smilie here)

Horse gone. Barn door closed.

--------------------------------------------

Here is the press release I've made my comments in quotes.

Scientists Conclude Very Low Risk to Humans from Food Containing Melamine
USDA Releases Some Swine and Poultry for Processing


WASHINGTON, May 7, 2007 – There is very low risk to human health from consuming meat from hogs and chickens known to have been fed animal feed supplemented with pet food scraps that contained melamine and melamine-related compounds, according to an assessment conducted by scientists from five federal agencies.

In the most extreme risk assessment scenario, when scientists assumed that all the solid food a person consumes in an entire day was contaminated with melamine at the levels observed in animals fed contaminated feed, the potential exposure was about 2,500 times lower than the dose considered safe. In other words, it was well below any level of public health concern.

The extreme risk assessment scenario questions:
1) How safe is safe enough? Show the public the scenario, now. We need to be able to interpret the statistics and identify the assumptions. If we don't, then they can hide behind statistics and assumptions. Some questions to ask:
a) Was this assessment based only on consuming melamine? Remember, there are three other chemicals, NOT just melamine. And they reacted with urine.

b) Was any of the pig or poultry food contaminated with wheat, rice or corn gluten DIRECTLY?
They talk about a proportion of pet food given to the poultry. But we know that China created feed just for poultry too. Did any suppliers to the 38 farms give poultry feed that was formulated from contaminated gluten alone? Since we don't know the farms, we can't call them up and ask. "What did you feed them? Where did you get it? Who sold it to you?"
Remember, the 3.5 million birds went out in February. That was long before the recall. Give me names of companies who created the food for the birds and pigs so we can ask THEM what they put into their food.

2) When will they release their risk assessment document? Before or after they release the birds to the chicken eating public?

3) What dose is considered safe? Were these safe dosage tests done on humans or rats? They are probably using an old study based on rats eating melamine only. Melamine alone is NOT the problem.

The risk assessment is an important new science-based component of the continuing federal joint investigation into imported wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate from China that contained melamine and melamine-related compounds.

Risk assessment covers a lot of ground, calling it science-based sounds more scientific I guess. But it really includes a lot of statistics in it and numbers ("too many numbers"?) maybe Kelley B or one of my other real science-talking readers could comment on this.

The risk assessment was conducted by scientists from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This team is now compiling a scientific assessment of the risk to animal health associated with ingestion of animal feed containing melamine and its compounds.

Who are the independent scientists who will be reviewing this assessment?

FDA and USDA are in the process of identifying a group of experts to convene a scientific advisory board that would be charged with reviewing the risk assessment. This group would also be asked to contribute to future scientific analysis related to the risk of melamine and its compounds to humans and animals.

And this "group of experts" comes from which industries? Who pays their bills? Agribusiness, the pet food industry? The chemical industry?

In the course of the investigation, it was discovered that pet food was contaminated by wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate that contained melamine and its compounds. Subsequently, scraps of contaminated pet food that contained only low levels of melamine were distributed to farms in a limited number of states and added to the feed consumed by swine and poultry. These scraps constituted only a small percentage of the farm animal rations. In addition, melamine is known to be excreted in animal urine. When exposure levels are much higher, as was the case with cats and dogs, the melamine and its compounds appear to cause the formation of crystals in the kidney systems, resulting in kidney damage. There was no indication of kidney damage in hogs. Both hogs and chickens known to have been fed contaminated feed appear to be healthy.

"Melamine is known to be excreted in animal urine."
1) Which animals? Rats? Cats? Dogs? Pigs? Humans? (Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh my!)
Is ALL of it excreted? No. With pets the melamine and other chemicals caused vomiting and crystals to form in kidneys. Some was still excreted. That's not the point. When I take Vitamin C it's know to be excreted in my urine. (Ever take too much and pee bright yellow?) that doesn't mean that I don't absorb enough of it to make an impact on my body, just that the excess is excreted. And different animals react different to chemicals. Rats have a more robust digestive track than other animals.

This dilution factor was an important piece of data considered in the multi-agency science-based human risk analysis and helps to support the conclusion that there is very low risk to human health from eating meat from animals that were fed the contaminated product. This conclusion supports the decision announced on April 28 not to recall meat from animals that were fed contaminated product.

Where have I seen a conclusion made to support a decision that has already been made? That's right, The Downing Street Memo, where the "facts are being fixed around the policy."

And what about the accumulation factor? This dilution factor is based on assumptions in which they have no physical evidence. That's hope, not science. See their FAQ where they admit they don't have data.

A safety/risk assessment is a scientific approach to estimating the risk to human health from exposure to specified compounds. It is based on available data and certain scientific assumptions in the absence of data.

Currently, swine and poultry on farms suspected of receiving contaminated feed are being held under state quarantine or voluntarily by the owners. In several cases, feed samples have tested negative for melamine and related compounds. These tests were conducted by federal laboratories or state laboratories using approved methods. It is assumed that because only small amounts of the contaminated feed were mixed with other rations, the melamine and related compounds were no longer detectable. USDA has concluded that, based on the human risk assessment and the inability to detect melamine in the feed samples, these animals no longer need to be quarantined or withheld from processing.

Again with the assumptions! Is all this hoop jumping really necessary for 20 million chickens?
Or are they preping us for 200 million chickens who ate bad feed and trying to excuse the 3.5 million melamine and c-acid contaminated chickens we already ate?

In other cases, feed samples have tested positive for melamine and related compounds; feed samples were not available; or feed samples have not yet been submitted for testing. These animals continue to be withheld from processing, but are not yet being culled, pending the results of the animal risk assessment. This assessment is expected to be completed within one week. At that time, USDA will determine whether these animals can be released for inspection and further processing.

USDA and FDA continue to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation. As additional information is confirmed, updates will be provided and decisions will be made using the best available science to protect the public's health.

Is this really about protecting public health or is it about protecting the poultry and swine industry? The US demanded that China kill millions of birds to stop Avian flu because they were afraid it would jump to humans even thought the "risk assessment" was very low that eating the dead birds would cause bird flu. Why the different standard on this?

To ensure no further contaminated products enter the U.S., the federal government will continue to monitor imported wheat and corn gluten as well as rice protein concentrate and isolates arriving from all countries destined for human and animal consumption. The FDA import alert for these products sourced from China remains in effect and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue laboratory testing of the products as they enter the U.S. The inspections are a precautionary measure to ensure the safety of products entering at U.S. ports of entry. There is no evidence to suggest products bound for the human food supply are contaminated.

"No evidence to suggest." Okay, could you please tell us the story about how the FDA caught products that WERE bound for the human food supply? Bet a lot of you in the press don't know that story. Maybe someone should ask it, might prove useful to remind people that we KNOW of cases where tainted gluten DID get into the human food supply, but just didn't get delivered to the stores.
That kind of throws a hole in the FDA's line.

For additional information about the pet food and contaminated feed investigation, go to www.fda.gov or www.usda.gov. The human safety/risk assessment will be available online upon completion of an executive summary.

Great. Again I ask this be before or after you release the birds on the chicken eating public?

Years of tainted Pet Food from China

NY Time and Reuters have now reported that melamine, used to make plastic, has been added to grains and gluten by some Chinese companies to boost the real protein content of pet food. This has been happening FOR YEARS.

What now?

Reply to all Forward Print Add Kim to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?

I have 5 cats that died since 2000 that I am convinced got sick from food, (with a little help from vaccines tossed in for bad measure)

How will we know when our job is done?
-Kim of Petfoodtracker

(Kim along with Ben of Itchmo, Nikki of Howl911, Theresa of PetsitUSA and of course Gina and Christine of Petconnection are the brilliant bloggers tracking this pet food recall crisis, go there and read, and donate too!)

I'll give some advice to the pet food companies on what to do next. (Will they listen to a Brain in a Box? I doubt it, but I have to try.)


1) Stop treating this like a recall of a defective product. This is food that kills living things. Not a product whose malfunction causes an inconvenience. This is not Dell recalling batteries. Think Johnson and Johnson recalling Tylenol. That is your shorthand message. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

2) Listen to your real customers, people with pets. People tell you that, but I know many CEOs DON'T know what their real end users really think. Who do CEOs see as their customer? Wall Street analysts, the board of directors and the major retailers. But they are not the ones whose "fur kids" are dying. Pet parents, as many call themselves, won't just down grade your stock. They want you in jail. You killed their fur kid, they will tell EVERYONE they know, until they trust you again...if ever.

3) Do the hard thing that will restore trust for the end user. The Tylenol story is bandied about as the gold standard of the right way to do things. J&J focused on restoring trust to the end user, based on their corporate value of safety, not "how to I keep the big retailers who buy truckloads happy?"

Don't think, "How do I minimize this for Wall Street so that the quarterlies will look good after the 25 million dollar write down for the recall.' Think, 'What will it take to convince the end user, whose pet is dead, to buy my food again?" When you answer THAT question then you will know what to do.

Companies ask, "What are blogs good for? " Most companies want to push to bloggers, to sell them stuff. They ask, "How do I get them to write good stuff about my products?"
Wrong question. Ask, "What are they saying about my company and product?" READ them for customer attitudes instead of figuring out how to sell stuff to people with blogs. What would you learn? Just how PISSED people are and, since your customers are smart, what they want you to do before they trust you again.

4) Bring in third party trusted testers. Not just "inspectors", TESTERS. People who actually analyze food. Then need to be independently funded and above reproach. Test EVERYTHING. Give them veto power over everything that goes into the food. For manufacturers the phase you are afraid of but you need? "They can stop the line."

5) Open up your records. Where does it comes from, what's in it? The cat's out of the bag (and he's not eating your food!) People now know about the Chinese connection, but do they know about the other dirty little secrets like rendering plants and what THEY put in the food? Dead, diseased, dying and down cattle are not good things to put in any food.
Now is the time to do this, or just wait until the mad cow strikes again, your choice.

6) Spend more on labeling than on marketing for 6 months.

7) Demand more of the FDA and the USDA and government regulators. Instead of screaming, "We can regulate ourselves!" Admit you have done a crummy job and say, "Please FDA, inspect us MORE. Here is MORE and FASTER access to our information. And here is the information about our suppliers. Here are our databases. This is NOT proprietary any more, you don't have to beg us for paperwork anymore." (I'm looking at you ConAgra).

8) Really communicate with your end users. The CEO and operations person should be on the phone talking to the folks whose pets have died. What do THEY want? What will it take to make they trust you again? If your communications people told you to do this and you didn't, listen to them now. If they didn't, get someone who understands how to keep your end users happy.

Lots of lawyers might have tried to help you minimize this. That ship has sailed, you need to go big with your story and THEN it will be minimized, but as we see from politics, it's often the attempts to cover up and down play a crisis that just makes it bigger.

I don't expect any companies to listen to or follow any of this advice. Why? Because right now they are listening to the "experts". The experts you need to hear from first are the people whose pets are sick or dead. Then trust your gut, if you have a heart you'll know what really needs to be done.

We hear you say, "We have pets too." But we don't hear what you would do if this happened to YOUR pet. What could you do to make your dead dog proud of you again? What would your dog, who you fed tainted food, ask of you to make it stop, so it never happened again? Your dog can't talk to you, but their guardians can. The parents of "fur kids" can tell you want they need.

What do I think? The company that goes big and demands testing, and welcomes regulation and opens up their books, will "win" this crisis. Everyone else might survive, but they will never come out of this like Johnson and Johnson did.

Who do you want to be like Mr. Pet Food CEO and Mr. Pet Food Brand Manager? Union Carbide after Bhopal or Johnson and Johnson after Tylenol? The choice is yours.

Frightening Food Facts about the FDA from the GAO

From Tuesday's House hearings about the FDA:

Did you know:
The federal government can issue mandatory recalls for tires and toys but not food?
The only exception is baby formula. Did you know that? Does that surprise you?

How the heck did this happen? Who decided that killing your customers is just the cost of doing business? Is letting citizen's pets die a good way to get votes? I thought that even illogical humans would figure out that old Vulcan saying,
"Killing your customers is bad PR."
For those who didn't get to watch the hearing they feature my new hero
Lisa Shames, Acting Director Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office.


How cool is she? First she has a great name like "shamus - as in detective or it could be "She shames the people who rip us off. " And she works for our beloved GAO! I think Scout Prime and I will have to give them The Greatest Government Agency in America Award.
Seriously doesn't everyone want MORE accountability in government?

For this video I some titles and pulled out some key quotes for emphasis. I'm still new at this video stuff so your advice is welcome and yes, I'm sure you could have done it better Rich.

The video is in Real Media format. I'll try and get it in WMA soon.

Opening Statement Paul Henderson Menu Foods Congressional Hearing

Paul K. Henderson, President and CEO of Menu Foods Income Fund.
Opening Statement Video (link)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA assure the Safety and Security of the Nations Food Supply. on April 24, 2007

Things I want you to notice.
1) Everyone is under oath
2) He says inspections would not have fixed this. What would? Remember, inspection is not the same as testing. Who does the testing?
3) Regarding testing. "Industry standard testing" took several weeks. I think we should compare time lines. The one he submitted and Itchmo's.

FDA to China, "Can we Please Check out the sources of contaimated pet food?" China. "No."

So the FDA wanted to go to China to check out the source of the contaminated pet food. China said no. Our Sen. Durbin said, "Hey, that's unacceptable." He's waiting for a reply. (see release and letter to Chinese ambassador below.)


One of the big frustration in this whole contaminated pet food crisis is companies (and now nations) withholding information. There are multiple reasons for this. Some are legit. If you rush to say that company X sold something that kills people and you are wrong, that could destroy reputations. But what if you have PROOF? And you have confirmed the information and you STILL don't tell people? What if you want to get more info to SAVE lives? And the people who have that info won't share it? Or they deny reality? Are there any consequences to this refusal to share? Besides the moral responsibility, is there any legal responsibility?

There are consequences to the pets when they eat poison. What are the consequences to people who withhold information or don't share it in a timely fashion?

Today the brilliant Nikki from Howl911.com pointed out how crazy it is that companies and now countries won't work harder and tell people faster the information they need regarding a safe food supply. She said can you imagine this news alert?

"Doctors today reported there are FIVE BRANDS of baby food on your grocery store shelves that might be poisonous, could even kill your child, but declined to identify which brands are under investigation."

This is unconceivable. Yet, when it comes to our pets this is what we get.

Today it's pet food. Tomorrow it WILL be people food.

Can we agree that now is the time to fix this system? Do we HAVE to have dead humans before we act?

Let's put into place better processes, procedures and yes LAWS so that people will move more quickly and reveal more completely information about contaminated food.


Press release from Sen. Durbin's office

Durbin, Delauro Meet With FDA's von Eschenbach.
Urge Chinese Government To Cooperate On Pet Food Contamination Investigation

[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) today met with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach in Durbin's Capitol office to discuss the latest recall of pet food, this time caused by contaminated rice protein imported from China.

In the meeting, Durbin and DeLauro learned that the Chinese Government has blocked requests from the FDA to send personnel to China to inspect the facilities suspected of producing the contaminated products. The FDA first contacted the Chinese Government on April 4, 2007, but have not been granted permission to send food inspectors into the country. In response, Durbin and DeLauro sent a letter to the Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Zhou Wenzong, urging the Chinese Government to issue visas to U.S. food inspectors as quickly as possible.

"It is unacceptable that the Chinese government is blocking our food safety inspectors from entering their country and examining facilities that are suspected of providing contaminated pet food to American consumers," said Durbin. "We have asked for two things in our letter today -- that the Chinese government allow our inspectors in and that the Chinese ambassador to the United States meet with Congresswoman DeLauro and me to discuss the larger issue of contaminated food being sent to the U.S.. These are reasonable requests and we hope that we can find a level of cooperation with the Chinese."

“At time when China is exporting more foods into the U.S, the Chinese are refusing to allow our inspectors in to the country to investigate the source of the pet food contamination. The FDA needs to be allowed to investigate this so we can better protect our pets and identify the source of the source of the problem. While we have a significant trade relationship with the Chinese, the investigation of the contaminated product comes first,” said DeLauro.

Last week, Durbin, a member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, along with Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, held a hearing to question witnesses on the timeline of the investigation, the source of the contamination, and the agency’s regulatory and inspection responsibilities. In the hearing, the Senators also questioned outside experts who about the current state of the pet food industry, as well as regulatory or resource shortfalls that led to the widespread recall of tainted pet food.

Additionally, DeLauro, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, will further explore FDA’s inspection of imported foods in a follow-up hearing before the subcommittee.

Durbin and DeLauro have been actively engaged on food safety issues for over a decade. This Congress they introduced legislation that calls for the development of a single food safety agency and the implementation of a food safety program to standardize American food safety activities (The Safe Food Act – S. 654 and H.R. 1148 in the Senate and House respectively). The Illinois senator said legislation he has introduced to consolidate all federal food safety responsibilities into a single, independent agency has taken on new urgency because of a possibly heightened need to respond quickly and effectively to any acts of bioterrorism or agroterrorism. Currently, there are at least 12 different federal agencies and 35 different laws governing food safety. With overlapping jurisdictions, federal agencies often lack accountability on food safety-related issues.

The non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has been unequivocal in its recommendation for consolidation of federal food safety programs. In February of this year, the GAO deemed federal oversight of food safety as “high risk” to the economy and public health and safety. Over the past two decades, GAO has also issued numerous reports on topics such as food recalls, food safety inspections and the transport of animal feeds. Each of these reports highlights the current fragmentation and inconsistent organization of the various agencies involved in food safety oversight.

[copy of the letter attached and below]

April 18, 2007



Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China
2300 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20008

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

The ongoing investigation into the recent series of pet deaths and illnesses in the United States has revealed that contaminated batches of wheat gluten and rice protein responsible for these events were imported from China. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), China was the source of both the contaminated wheat gluten responsible for the recall of more than 60 million containers of cat and dog food, and the most recent recall of rice protein products.

Both products were contaminated with melamine, a chemical used for industrial purposes in the United States and in fertilizers in China. According to experts, no level of melamine should be found in pet or human food.

In the case of the contaminated wheat gluten, FDA has identified Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. as the source of the product. Although spokespeople for Xuzhou Anying have denied involvement in the incident, U.S.-based importer ChemNutra, Inc., has demonstrated that it imported the contaminated wheat gluten from Xuzhou Anying and various media reports show that the Chinese company was involved in purchasing significant quantities of melamine. In the case of the rice protein contamination, U.S. importer Wilbur-Ellis has said that it imported its products from Binzhou Futian Biology Technology, Ltd.

In response to these contaminations, on March 30, 2007, FDA took steps to block imports of Chinese wheat gluten thought to pose a risk to the safety of the human and pet food supply. The Agency has also made multiple requests to the Chinese Government to allow U.S. inspectors to look at the facilities that are suspected to have produced the contaminated product. On April 4, 2007, the FDA sent its first letter to the Chinese Government asking for visas to allow its inspectors visit China. The request was not granted, and on April 17, 2007, the FDA sent an additional letter emphasizing that it wished to be allowed to send its inspectors to China.

This incident has brought suffering to pet owners who have seen their animals fall prey to illness or death, and caused significant economic losses to U.S. companies that believed they were importing wholesome products

Therefore, we strongly urge the Chinese Government to quickly issue visas to U.S. inspectors and cooperate in this investigation. Last year, the United States imported more than $2.1 billion of agricultural goods from China, up from nearly $1.8 billion the year before. Clearly, this is an important trading relationship.

We appreciate the courtesy of a timely response. We would also like to meet with you in the near future to discuss this issue.


Sincerely,

______________________________ ______________________________
Richard J. Durbin Rosa L. DeLauro
U.S. Senator Chairwoman House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

UPDATE 1 Edited to remove double post info

Sen. Durbin Questions Duane Ekedahl, Pet Food Institute

Things I want you to notice about this clip are listed below: Click on any image to play or download link

Note how Senator Durbin lays out the case and then doesn't let incorrect statements or the redefining of critical words go unchallenged.

1. What does "regulation" mean to the Pet Food Institute? To the pet food industry? Is that the same as the public's understanding of what regulation means?
2. How does "regulation" happen in practical terms?
3. Who is doing the "regulation"? How often?
   
   
4. What are the penalties for failure? Consequences for failure?
   
   
5. How often does this "regulation" happen?
6. Who can effectively, without industry bias, oversee food safety regulation?
   
   

• Who dies when there is NO real oversight and NO real consistent regulation?
• Who profits?
  

Also note the simple questions that couldn't be answered.
Note statements of fact made by Ekedahl.

Keep that claim of 100% of the incoming wheat gluten inspected in mind in the days to come.

And finally, what is the difference between inspecting and testing?

39,000 pets may have been hurt by tainted food

How many pet effected by tainted food? Possibly up to 39,000.

So it looks like we have some new data, but want to know what is REALLY interesting. Below is the FIRST AP story.

The Associated Press April 9, 2007, 8:31PM EST

Tainted food may have hurt 39,000 pets

By ANDREW BRIDGES, WASHINGTON

Pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical may have sickened or killed 39,000 cats and dogs nationwide, based on an extrapolation from data released Monday by one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals.

Banfield, The Pet Hospital, said an analysis of its database, compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals, suggests that three out of every 10,000 cats and dogs that ate the pet food contaminated with melamine developed kidney failure. There are an estimated 60 million dogs and 70 million cats in the United States, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The hospital chain saw 1 million dogs and cats during the three months when the more than 100 brands of now-recalled contaminated pet food were sold. It saw 284 extra cases of kidney failure among cats during that period, or a roughly 30 percent increase, when compared with background rates.

Snip: Go to full story here.

Now note and compare it to THIS version (link)

Apr 10, 1:53 AM EDT

Tainted Pet Food-Kidney Illness Link

By ANDREW BRIDGES
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cases of kidney failure among cats rose by 30 percent during the three months that pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical was sold, one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals reported Monday.

Compare:
Tainted food may have hurt 39,000 pets vs.

Tainted Pet Food-Kidney Illness Link.

Now what is THAT about? The headline didn't just change, the whole first paragraph is different.

Who's putting pressure on whom? I'd ask Media Matters to look into it but they are busy with the whole Imus deal.

Speaking of that, thanks to JP at Welcome to Pottersville for talking about my case on the Kincaid Show today.

Friday Cat Blogging

The first time I got in the New York Times (October 28, 2004) was for my "Friday Cat Blogging". I made a joke that since all the political bloggers talk about cats on Friday and showed their photos, here was mine. And I put up a photo of a giant "Cat" bulldozer.

I can't joke about this current pet food recall debacle that is leading to the death of thousands of cats and dogs.
Unoffical count Update 4/6, 6:30 a.m. PT: 3,242 pets have been reported as deceased to our PetConnection database.

And for John who said...

I'd like to see your source on that 3000+ dead pets, the most I've seen on "reputable" websites is ~250, that's a whole order of magnitude off from your numbers. I think the companies should come clean, but I also don't think anyone should be inflating numbers just to get a response.

What is "reputable" to you? Menu Foods? The FDA? Who have been saying only 16 dead for weeks past the date that they KNEW it was higher?

The point is that their is no coordinated national database for pet deaths. There is no CDC for animals tracking and correlating this.

The current reporting systems and connections are weak or non-existent for this kind of work. PetConnection put their database together to fill a void. And I ask you "John" (if that is your real name) who are you posting for? Is it really accurate info you care about? Or are you more interested in downplaying this issue?

I KNOW the people at PetConnection would LOVE to have official accurate numbers. The MSM still wants to quote the "experts" even if the experts have been holding and underreporting for WEEKS. We would LOVE and official count from an official organization. But guess what, some of the officials aren't doing the job that needs to be done. So, in the fine American Tradition and of good bloggers everywhere, PetConnection built their own database.

We also have the folks from Itchmo, Howl911, PetfoodTracker and others replicating the recall info and digging up more links in this story. They might not be "offical" but THEY are the experts now. Because they have done the work. And, they are thinking of the pet safety first, not how to sooth investors or sponsors.

If you have to see the photos and autopsies of the 3,000 plus dead pets until you believe this is real, well that might take some time and in the meantime pets are dying. Can you grasp WHY it is important to get the SCOPE of this out there?

Do you want to see one dead pet John? How about Alex? This is from and unofficial website called Menu Foods Victims. I don't know how "reputable" they are. Maybe they just made up this story to "get a response" but I doubt it. Look at the pretty cat. Read the painful words. Then ask yourself, how responsible were the people who DID NOT reveal the scope of this story for weeks?